The admission by Defence Minister Richard Marles that there was much to be done for his department to lift its game in order to achieve a culture of excellence blew the lid on simmering tensions in relations with the Minister. It had been earlier reported that Mr Marles was very critical of the Defence department in a meeting with senior officials, including the Secretary, Greg Moriarty, and the Chief of the Defence Force (CDF), General Angus Campbell. The admission by Mr Marles following rumours emanating from Canberra for months of growing tensions in relations is worrying.

I first encountered Mr Marles when I was the employment and workplace relations minister. He was a part of the regular meetings I had with the ACTU. The unions were represented by Joe de Bruyn, Greg Combet and Marles. I had known Joe for a long time. He had been president of the Shoppies Union – the SDA – for many years; a stalwart of the right and one of the straight, old-time unionists with whom you could have a genuine discussion. Greg Combet was then secretary of the ACTU, the hard man of the movement, but affable and friendly, as was Marles. His portfolios were workers compensation and occupational health and safety, so there were many things we could agree upon.

After Marles’ election to parliament, I watched his performances in the House closely. He is different to many of his Labor colleagues. The son of Richard – a former headmaster of Trinity Grammar School –and Fay – Victoria’s first Equal Opportunity Commissioner – he was educated at Geelong Grammar School. He is urbane and a good orator in the House, qualities that would suit a prime minister of the country. I have found him consultative. Indeed, he came to discuss the Defence portfolio with me when he was shadow minister.

Defence has its challenges for any minister regardless of political affiliation. It is compounded by the fact that there has been an almost constant turnover of ministers in one of the most significant cabinet posts in Australia. It is not since Kim Beazley and Robert Hill that defence ministers have remained in the job for extended periods of time. The convolutions of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years and the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison era compounded the problem. The revolving door has made it difficult for ministers to establish the longer-term authority required to drive the defence agenda.

Having seen the consequences for ministers who fell out of favour with the defence leadership, I knew – upon being appointed – that there could not be a sliver of difference between us publicly. This meant gaining mutual trust and working through issues assiduously. Having an outstanding Secretary in Denis Richardson, and an equally impressive Chief of the Defence Force, Mark Binskin, as well as a supportive Prime Minister Abbott, was of enormous benefit. But the hard work to ensure that reform occurred still had to be done.

Defence is an unwieldy beast. First, it comprises the three services, Navy, Army and Air Force, as well as the Joint Operations Command. Along with the CDF and the Deputy CDF, the heads of these bodies comprise the senior leadership of the ADF. It wasn’t until I was minister that we finally completed the full amalgamation of the services into one defence force. In addition, the entity is a diarchy, that is, it is headed not only by the CDF, but also by a departmental secretary.  Change comes very slow to Defence. Not only are there the traditions of each of the services, there is the usual middle-executive-level resistance to change – in both the civilian and military arms. Yet rapid change to ensure Australia has a modern, flexible and efficient defence force is critical. This poses challenges for the minister.

Managing the tensions is significant. In an area critical to national security and often involving top secret information, it is critical that, wherever possible, the defence minister obtains some independent advice. I utilised David Peever, for example, who had headed up the creation of one defence force to monitor the implementation. I also employed the former US secretary for the navy, Professor Don Winter, to advise me on all things naval. Having another voice to question the advice from Defence was invaluable.

The fact that the rumours about the meeting with Mr Marles came from Defence is worrying. It points to a breakdown of trust that has reached significant portions. Rather than a sliver of difference, it points to a chasm the breadth of King’s Avenue between Parliament House and the Defence headquarters over Lake Burley Griffin at Russell Hill. If the leak came from the Marles office, it is even more worrying, as it spells an escalation in the differences.

Apart from the ongoing challenges at Defence, there are problems at the political end of the relationship. The extent to which the Minister has been distracted from his primary duties by being Deputy Prime Minister while Mr Albanese has spent so much time overseas is a factor. More significant are the clear tensions within the government over foreign policy, given the Defence Minister effectively is the nation’s second voice on the subject. Unlike the Foreign Minister, Marles has to actually ensure the defence of the nation. This is where he should put aside some of his caution and more clearly advocate for the nation’s needs, including the raising of defence expenditure to three per cent of GDP. Driving efficiency and outcomes in Defence should be accompanied by the realism that current expenditure will not meet our national security requirements in a rapidly changing region.

The Minister has a chance to make his mark with the appointment of a new CDF in July. Whether he should have extended the tenure of Angus Campbell is a matter for debate, but he now has the chance to appoint a leader who will make the changes necessary in the ADF. To appoint a career Russell Hill-type would be a wasted opportunity when dynamic and forward-thinking leadership is required.

If the seriousness of the situation was not understood, we should see in the decision by the Chinese Communist party to impose a suspended death penalty on the Australian, Yang Hengjun, a further indication of its ambitions to bring Australia to heel.

The CCP is engaged in a hybrid war, to which Australia is a party, whether we like it or not. We cannot have an ineffective defence minister.